[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54E74B58.90706@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:57:28 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@...escale.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, scottwood@...escale.com,
mihai.caraman@...escale.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc/kvm: Enable running guests on RT Linux
On 20/02/2015 15:54, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Usually you see "scheduling while atomic" on -RT and convert them to
> raw locks if it is appropriate.
>
> Bogdan wrote in 2/2 that he needs to limit the number of CPUs in oder
> not cause a DoS and large latencies in the host. I haven't seen an
> answer to my why question. Because if the conversation leads to
> large latencies in the host then it does not look right.
>
> Each host PIC has a rawlock and does mostly just mask/unmask and the
> raw lock makes sure the value written is not mixed up due to
> preemption.
> This hardly increase latencies because the "locked" path is very short.
> If this conversation leads to higher latencies then the locked path is
> too long and hardly suitable to become a rawlock.
Yes, but large latencies just mean the code has to be rewritten (x86
doesn't anymore do event injection in an atomic regions for example).
Until it is, using raw_spin_lock is correct.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists